In practice, it is harmless to voluntarily sleep in a
rcu_read_lock() section if we are running under preempt rcu, but
it is illegal if we build a kernel running non-preemptable rcu.
Currently, might_sleep() doesn't notice sleepable operations
under rcu_read_lock() sections if we are running under
preemptable rcu because preempt_count() is left untouched after
rcu_read_lock() in this case. But we want developers who test
their changes under such config to notice the "sleeping while
atomic" issues.
So we add rcu_read_lock_nesting to prempt_count() in
might_sleep() checks.
[ v2: Handle rcu-tiny ]
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
LKML-Reference: <
1260991265-8451-1-git-send-regression-fweisbec@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
{
}
+static inline int rcu_preempt_depth(void)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
+
#endif /* __LINUX_RCUTINY_H */
extern void synchronize_rcu(void);
extern void exit_rcu(void);
+/*
+ * Defined as macro as it is a very low level header
+ * included from areas that don't even know about current
+ */
+#define rcu_preempt_depth() (current->rcu_read_lock_nesting)
+
#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU */
static inline void __rcu_read_lock(void)
{
}
+static inline int rcu_preempt_depth(void)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
+
#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU */
static inline void __rcu_read_lock_bh(void)
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP
static inline int preempt_count_equals(int preempt_offset)
{
- int nested = preempt_count() & ~PREEMPT_ACTIVE;
+ int nested = (preempt_count() & ~PREEMPT_ACTIVE) + rcu_preempt_depth();
return (nested == PREEMPT_INATOMIC_BASE + preempt_offset);
}